Republic of the Philippines
Department of Finance
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
7th Floor, EDPC Bldg., BSP Complex
Roxas Boulevard, Manila
ISABEL B. SANTOS,
CBAA CASE NO. L-122
-versus-(LBAA CASE NO. 2011-001)
LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF THE CITY OF VALENZUELA,
GUALBERTO B. BERNAS IV, in his official capacity as City Treasurer of Valenzuela,
X- – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x
R E S O L U T I O N
On July 29, 2013, this Board rendered a Decision in the above-entitled case, a copy of which was received by Petitioner-Appellant on August 15, 2013.
Not satisfied, Petitioner-Appellant filed with this Board on August 22, 2013, a Motion for Reconsideration raising the following:
WHETHER THE CITY ASSESSOR APPEARED BY VIRTUE OF THE HONORABLE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS’ COERCIVE POWER.
WHETHER THE FILING OF THE CITY ASSESSOR OF VALENZUELA OF JOINT OPPOSITION/COMMENT TOGETHER WITH THE CITY TREASURER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS CONSTITUTED VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE CENTRAL BOARD MAY MOTU PROPIO DISMISS THE INSTANT CASE FOR ALLEGEDLY HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST AN IMPROPER PARTY OR FOR HAVING FAILED TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION
WHETHER RESPONDENT CITY TREASURER IS BARRED FROM FILING THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
WHETHER THE ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENT CITY TREASURER IN ITS MOTION TO DISMISS HAD ALREADY BEEN WAIVED.
WHETHER THE CASE CITED BY THE HONORABLE CENTRAL BOARD IS APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE AND WHETHER IT IS STILL A GOOD LAW.”
The above-listed “issues” and Petitioner-Appellant’s “grounds” and “arguments and discussions” made thereunder were thoroughly considered in the aforementioned Decision of this Board.
In essence, Petitioner-Appellant wished that Respondent City Treasurer undo or otherwise revise the subject assessments made by the City Assessor who is not made a party to this case. The Respondent City Treasurer has no power or authority to make such correction or revision. Hence, this Board dismissed Petitioner-Appellant’s Appeal to this Board – not because of Respondent City Treasurer’s Motion to Dismiss.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
Manila, Philippines, October 21, 2013.
OFELIA A. MARQUEZ
ROBERTO D. GEOTINA CAMILO L. MONTENEGRO